India still lives under a caste system which will make it tough to become a global power. The fact they talk from both sides of their mouth doesn’t help. They have no real allies as they attempt to advance a country. They also have no military which would make it even harder to achieve those lofty goals. The US is waking up to their bullshit too which is going to have all these call centers and factories coming back home. Hope they enjoyed their golden age because it’s about to get a little harder as the US shifts to itself.
"While India has been a source for peace as a non-aligned power that mitigated bloc politics, its neutral position often results in the inability to take a clear position on critical issues."
India has NOT been a source of peace in its seventy-plus years of existence. It has testy relations with all its neighbors and is widely regarded as a bully in South Asia, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The narrative of a peaceful spiritual nation is a product of Western imagination and has no connection to reality. India sees itself as an imperial power, much like the British. That the world at large didn't perceive India as a hegemon is because of the lack of hard power by India.
India is the reason the US went to war in Vietnam:
With all due respect to the ambassador, I respectfully disagree.
1. Indian local Hindi channels have consistently been pro-Russian throughout the conflict. Every day, we saw coverage focused on how Russia was relentlessly attacking Ukraine. While English-language media might have been influenced by American perspectives, local-language news outlets have remained entirely pro-Russian from the very start of the war up until today.
2. India has played an active role in supporting Russia during this conflict. India's imports from Russia jumped in both percentage terms and absolute value much more than china. India’s increase in imports from Russia has been much more substantial than China’s, effectively supporting Russia's economy more than China has.
This was completely unforeseen by the UK, EU, US, and NATO in their sanctions and financial strategies, which had been designed around a very different expectation. India’s support for Russia effectively checkmated the financial tactics they had planned for the conflict.
Bhadrakumar is an old apparatchik from the Congress era. He has seen a lot and know a good deal, but he is from the era of appeasement (note that he decries the Modi´s government supposedly not wanting to talk to China and Pakistan. That isn´t true. Modi and Jaishankar have literally changed the rules of the game vis-à-vis both countries, including with covert operations in Pakistan - note the many well-known terrorists killed in the past two years in Pakistan by the now famous ´unknown men´. India is also not so covertly supporting the Balochis and other groups inside Pakistan. The latter is a failed society that is slowly disintegrating. India also quietly supports the Taliban, currently attacking cantonments inside Pakistan. As for China since the Doklam Plateau confrontation in Bhutan in 2018, and the development (including military) of Arunachal Pradesh (claimed by China as ´South Tibet´), everything has changed too. It is no longer 1962 when Nehru famously let India lose the war against its neighbour (and supported China´s candidacy for the UN Security Council - sic).
The Doklam confrontation in 2017 was an incident initiated by India to get complete control of Bhutan under the pretext of 'helping India against China's transgression'.
Here is how a Bhutanese describes the Doklam situation. It is clear who the Bhutanese see as a threat to their country. It is not China but India.
As to the territorial dispute between India and China, It is not Arunachal Pradesh (claimed by China as ´South Tibet´) but more like South Tibet, claimed by India as 'Arunachal Pradesh'. Here is a timeline of how South Tibet became Arunachal Pradesh.
Nehru didn't let India lose the 1962 war with China. India was defeated by China, and India has been nursing its hatred towards China since then. By the way, India is the reason the US went to war with Vietnam.
Am no specialist in Bhutanese affairs but your whole piece (I just read your piece in your blog) seems counterintuitive at best, at worst thinly veiled pro-Chinese gaslighting. The inclusion of a link on Arunachal Pradesh ('South Tibet') and another on Nehru and the 1962 War cements my suspicions. There was never to the best of my knowledge a 'South Tibet': China's recent (May 2025) umpteenth list standardizing the Tibetan names of places in Arunachal Pradesh is a laughable provocation. Granted, the place is traditionally partly Buddhist and Tibetan. That does not make it Chinese. Nehru was basically a traitor in collusion with Brits and Americans (and, it is suspected, especially considering his actions - for instance, letting China get a seat in the UN Security Council instead of India! - also the Chinese). Your piece on Vietnam is ridiculous, as are its statements about Indian history ('thousands of fiefdoms'. Well, yes and no! There is an ancient Bharatiya civilisation which unifies the whole subcontinent, and there were other empires before - and after - the Mughals. You seem to revere the latter). I am sorry, yaar, but your pieces stink to high heavens with bombast and inaccuracies and outright gaslighting!
So, you admit the region is partly Buddhist and Tibetan, then why shouldn't it be part of China? Why should it be part of India? The maps by China, published by China, notwithstanding, even maps by Britain, France, and the US show the region to be part of China. Use the map of China published by the US National Geographic Society in 1912 as an example; the map clearly shows the region of South Tibet within the boundary of China. India has no connection to the northeast historically, ethnically, religiously, or linguistically. If it were not for the British, India wouldn't even have existed. There is no ancient Bharatiya civilisation that unifies the whole subcontinent. This is just made-up nonsense.
"It is no longer 1962 when Nehru famously let India lose the war against its neighbour (and supported China´s candidacy for the UN Security Council - sic)."
You believe Nehru let India lose the 1962 war against China? Are you serious? Also, the PRC's seat at the United Nations has absolutely nothing to do with India. You are inventing fake history here.
- Did India also apply the "Gerschenkron" growth model ? If so, the we can expect to see India to go the way China has gone in the previous say 35 years. It ended up with a giant debt bubble / debt crisis.
India still lives under a caste system which will make it tough to become a global power. The fact they talk from both sides of their mouth doesn’t help. They have no real allies as they attempt to advance a country. They also have no military which would make it even harder to achieve those lofty goals. The US is waking up to their bullshit too which is going to have all these call centers and factories coming back home. Hope they enjoyed their golden age because it’s about to get a little harder as the US shifts to itself.
Again Wrong this is just narrative fed to you since eternity
We shall see won’t we.
"While India has been a source for peace as a non-aligned power that mitigated bloc politics, its neutral position often results in the inability to take a clear position on critical issues."
India has NOT been a source of peace in its seventy-plus years of existence. It has testy relations with all its neighbors and is widely regarded as a bully in South Asia, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The narrative of a peaceful spiritual nation is a product of Western imagination and has no connection to reality. India sees itself as an imperial power, much like the British. That the world at large didn't perceive India as a hegemon is because of the lack of hard power by India.
India is the reason the US went to war in Vietnam:
https://ppr06262023.substack.com/p/the-causes-of-the-vietnam-war
With all due respect to the ambassador, I respectfully disagree.
1. Indian local Hindi channels have consistently been pro-Russian throughout the conflict. Every day, we saw coverage focused on how Russia was relentlessly attacking Ukraine. While English-language media might have been influenced by American perspectives, local-language news outlets have remained entirely pro-Russian from the very start of the war up until today.
2. India has played an active role in supporting Russia during this conflict. India's imports from Russia jumped in both percentage terms and absolute value much more than china. India’s increase in imports from Russia has been much more substantial than China’s, effectively supporting Russia's economy more than China has.
This was completely unforeseen by the UK, EU, US, and NATO in their sanctions and financial strategies, which had been designed around a very different expectation. India’s support for Russia effectively checkmated the financial tactics they had planned for the conflict.
why india support russia is because polity of India will never ever support imperialistic tendencies of eu countries.
Bhadrakumar is an old apparatchik from the Congress era. He has seen a lot and know a good deal, but he is from the era of appeasement (note that he decries the Modi´s government supposedly not wanting to talk to China and Pakistan. That isn´t true. Modi and Jaishankar have literally changed the rules of the game vis-à-vis both countries, including with covert operations in Pakistan - note the many well-known terrorists killed in the past two years in Pakistan by the now famous ´unknown men´. India is also not so covertly supporting the Balochis and other groups inside Pakistan. The latter is a failed society that is slowly disintegrating. India also quietly supports the Taliban, currently attacking cantonments inside Pakistan. As for China since the Doklam Plateau confrontation in Bhutan in 2018, and the development (including military) of Arunachal Pradesh (claimed by China as ´South Tibet´), everything has changed too. It is no longer 1962 when Nehru famously let India lose the war against its neighbour (and supported China´s candidacy for the UN Security Council - sic).
The Doklam confrontation in 2017 was an incident initiated by India to get complete control of Bhutan under the pretext of 'helping India against China's transgression'.
Here is how a Bhutanese describes the Doklam situation. It is clear who the Bhutanese see as a threat to their country. It is not China but India.
https://wangchasangey.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-strategy-behind-india-doklam.html
As to the territorial dispute between India and China, It is not Arunachal Pradesh (claimed by China as ´South Tibet´) but more like South Tibet, claimed by India as 'Arunachal Pradesh'. Here is a timeline of how South Tibet became Arunachal Pradesh.
https://ppr06262023.substack.com/p/how-south-tibet-became-arunachal
Nehru didn't let India lose the 1962 war with China. India was defeated by China, and India has been nursing its hatred towards China since then. By the way, India is the reason the US went to war with Vietnam.
https://ppr06262023.substack.com/p/the-causes-of-the-vietnam-war
Am no specialist in Bhutanese affairs but your whole piece (I just read your piece in your blog) seems counterintuitive at best, at worst thinly veiled pro-Chinese gaslighting. The inclusion of a link on Arunachal Pradesh ('South Tibet') and another on Nehru and the 1962 War cements my suspicions. There was never to the best of my knowledge a 'South Tibet': China's recent (May 2025) umpteenth list standardizing the Tibetan names of places in Arunachal Pradesh is a laughable provocation. Granted, the place is traditionally partly Buddhist and Tibetan. That does not make it Chinese. Nehru was basically a traitor in collusion with Brits and Americans (and, it is suspected, especially considering his actions - for instance, letting China get a seat in the UN Security Council instead of India! - also the Chinese). Your piece on Vietnam is ridiculous, as are its statements about Indian history ('thousands of fiefdoms'. Well, yes and no! There is an ancient Bharatiya civilisation which unifies the whole subcontinent, and there were other empires before - and after - the Mughals. You seem to revere the latter). I am sorry, yaar, but your pieces stink to high heavens with bombast and inaccuracies and outright gaslighting!
So, you admit the region is partly Buddhist and Tibetan, then why shouldn't it be part of China? Why should it be part of India? The maps by China, published by China, notwithstanding, even maps by Britain, France, and the US show the region to be part of China. Use the map of China published by the US National Geographic Society in 1912 as an example; the map clearly shows the region of South Tibet within the boundary of China. India has no connection to the northeast historically, ethnically, religiously, or linguistically. If it were not for the British, India wouldn't even have existed. There is no ancient Bharatiya civilisation that unifies the whole subcontinent. This is just made-up nonsense.
"It is no longer 1962 when Nehru famously let India lose the war against its neighbour (and supported China´s candidacy for the UN Security Council - sic)."
You believe Nehru let India lose the 1962 war against China? Are you serious? Also, the PRC's seat at the United Nations has absolutely nothing to do with India. You are inventing fake history here.
Pity the sound was not the best. Anyway, thank you, Glenn.
- Did India also apply the "Gerschenkron" growth model ? If so, the we can expect to see India to go the way China has gone in the previous say 35 years. It ended up with a giant debt bubble / debt crisis.